My first Homebrew attempt to fix the elven dex fighter/rapier and bow all too frequent build in my campaign: I need some advice!

[ClaytonCross]

This is true. I was playing around with character creation on D&D beyond and decided to turn on variant encumbrance for my Strength 8 wizard. After giving him his gear using the starting gear in the PHB, I removed the hemp robe, the torches, and reduced rations from 10 to 5 days. He was still overweight (42lbs, needed 40 or less to be unaffected be weight) and had his speed reduced to 20 feet. If people used the variant encumbrance rules, you would definitely see higher strength scores.. or more pack mules. Problem is, recording and calculating weight is a major pain. Without DNDbeyond or other sheet to autocalculate, I don't think I'd want to bother with it.

Right and I hear that a lot, but then your ignoring the effects of not being strong. The effect is their is no such thing as weakness. … Every suddenly not only becomes strong but VERY strong. Strong to the point where the strength stat becomes trivial.. but not by the rules, but because a meta game reason of not wanting write stuff down on a piece of paper or use auto calculating sheet like MPMB or some formulas in excel which provides the required information to use strength. I am also guessing you, never run across heavy doors with strength requirement? you don't roll for swim, jump, climb check very often if ever, am I right? What about shove and grapple, rules? Those rule are in the book. If GMs are ignoring them for the meta game reason of not wanting deal with the "major pain of calculating weight" that's fine, but it comes with the side effect of devaluing the stat that it exists to reinforce. If a GM never uses perception, insight, or survival but uses investigation and knowledge skill or puzzles expect players to increase intellect because they don't see the point in wisdom. Making intellect less functional intellect will not suddenly make wisdom better because its being nerfed to uselessness unless its your spell caster ability.

 

[cbwjm]

Right and I hear that a lot, but then your ignoring the effects of not being strong. The effect is their is no such thing as weakness. … Every suddenly not only becomes strong but VERY strong. Strong to the point where the strength stat becomes trivial.. but not by the rules, but because a meta game reason of not wanting write stuff down on a piece of paper or use auto calculating sheet like MPMB or some formulas in excel which provides the required information to use strength. I am also guessing you, never run across heavy doors with strength requirement? you don't roll for swim, jump, climb check very often if ever, am I right? What about shove and grapple, rules? Those rule are in the book. If GMs are ignoring them for the meta game reason of not wanting deal with the "major pain of calculating weight" that's fine, but it comes with the side effect of devaluing the stat that it exists to reinforce. If a GM never uses perception, insight, or survival but uses investigation and knowledge skill or puzzles expect players to increase intellect because they don't see the point in wisdom. Making intellect less functional intellect will not suddenly make wisdom better because its being nerfed to uselessness unless its your spell caster ability.

No we do use the other rules and fail often when trying to climb or otherwise use strength without help. That 8 strength wizard isn't going to win any grapple he started. It is only the encumberance rules we don't really worry too much about. I'd be up for a simpler system, perhaps like that used by ACKS but having to keep track of every pound of gear is too much work, not enough gain for us.

 

[ClaytonCross]

No we do use the other rules and fail often when trying to climb or otherwise use strength without help. That 8 strength wizard isn't going to win any grapple he started. It is only the encumberance rules we don't really worry too much about. I'd be up for a simpler system, perhaps like that used by ACKS but having to keep track of every pound of gear is too much work, not enough gain for us.

Glad to hear your using the other rules. My GM requires encumbrance (and I do when I GM) just for this reason and because I don't get not know where your stuff is or carrying way more than should ever be physically possible. I think when D&D Beyond gets containers and auto calculations people will be tracking weight by accident and suddenly you will see people use encumbrance because you will not be tracking weight as a "separate action". For me tracking weight takes 0 extra effort because I use a PDF sheet that has a weight and number on it an auto calculates my weight. I track my pack in a different column and my mule in another. I shift rows disable weight tracking with click box and my encumbrance levels are listed based on my stats automatically. I get if your using pin and paper its not automatic and why you might feel that way. I did it on pin and paper between sessions but a couple of months ago I converted to a surface pro with keyboard, but no WIFI for that reason.. and to stop wasting printer ink and paper.

I didn't mean your wizard would grapple, I just meant do you use the rule at the table because I played a barbarian when we learned those rules and it made strength fun.

That said, the image of a tiny week Wizard with back pack well over 80lbs is exactly why me and my GM use encumbrance. Strength becomes where you put a few points in every character just so you can carry your basic needs. It is no longer a through away stat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Were they viable in 3E? You could still hit, if you took a feat for it, but you wouldn't deal enough damage to matter, since you didn't have Sneak Attack. I distinctly remember seeing a lot of level 10 characters that dealt 1d6+2 damage with a rapier, next to the other level 10 fighters that did 2d6+10 with a greatsword (before Power Attack).

The Man in Black always struck me as more of a pure rogue, or possibly fighter/rogue multi-class.

In 3.0 their was the Duellist prestige class. Or you could follow duel wielding for lots of attacks (only possible with high dex) or critical hits - Rapier had the highest critical threat range. 3.5 added more options for increasing dex fighter damage, and Pathfinder even more. It's something the various developers thought belonged in the game, and if you look at a sampling of classic movies you can see why: The Court Jester (1955) (very very D&Dish), The Crimson Pirate (1952), The Flame and the Arrow (1950), The Fellowship of the Ring (2001).

Rogue doesn't really work for this type of fighter, since you generally see them attacking frequently, wearing their opponent down with lots of minor wounds, whereas a rogue (even swashbuckler) attacks infrequently for high damage.

On the other hand, if you want classic movies where fighters always wear heavy armour and hammer away with big swords you are pretty much limited to Excalibur (1981) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In 3.0 their was the Duellist prestige class.

I'm familiar with the class. I tried playing one, at tenth level. I was severely disappointed. (It did have pretty great AC, and decent mobility, but I wasn't able to tank because none of the enemies saw me as a threat.)

Rogue doesn't really work for this type of fighter, since you generally see them attacking frequently, wearing their opponent down with lots of minor wounds, whereas a rogue (even swashbuckler) attacks infrequently for high damage.

Any set of game rules will be an imperfect model, but that sounds like you could address it in the way you describe hits. If 15 damage to an enemy with 150hp is like 1 damage to an enemy with 10hp, then you'll have to wear them down through minor wounds as a matter of course.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One of the issues with 3rd edition is you needed an huge knowledge of the rules in order to get the most from your character.